I don't know if it's actually the hardest thing to do, or if it just seems that way, but getting people on the same page is really hard. Well, getting people to agree on something as mundane on where to go for lunch is already a difficult and messy process, but more fundamentally getting people to show up at all is a feat in and of itself.
After all, showing up is difficult. Well, it's not always difficult, but it definitely requires conscious effort which always begs the question "Why should I bother?" A prerequisite to essentially anything is caring. And caring requires work. A person has to be able to sell the importance of a meeting or an event in order for anyone to show up, or if that isn't possible then compel them with some form of power. Otherwise, people will spend that time doing things that they find more important or will just choose not to put forth the effort. It's not mean or rude, it's people doing what hey feel is best.
Even then, all of that presupposes that they actually know. I, personally, believe that one of the biggest barriers in business and romance is the fact that we simply don't know anywhere near enough (and more importantly the right) things for these systems to operate the way they really should. Many times, highly skilled applicants for jobs and highly compatible partners are passed over not because they are not the right people but because they simply do not know.
I'm not saying that improvement hasn't been made. The internet allows for all kinds of connections that simply wouldn't be possible otherwise, but getting people to show up for events is a huge challenge. It's all the more daunting for the lack of thought I've given to it before.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Common Sense in Politics
What does that even mean? I mean, seriously.
Common sense is the natural conclusions of your assumptions and prior experience. So what does that even mean in the political arena?
I was told that I was stupid because I lack the "common sense" to blame the economic recession on a political actor. That, simply, doesn't make any sense. No politician would want a recession, because that always causes a political backlash on whomever might be in charge at the time. There is no reason for any politician in power to want one, so why would anyone manufacture one?
Moreover, what kind of crazy assumptions is someone bringing with them for that to even make sense? I mean, someone would have to genuinely think that Bush is a drooling idiot and Republicans are irresponsible and self-righteous morons, or that Obama really isn't American and Democrats seek an overthrow of America as we know it. It really makes me frustrated with the political process when the assumptions that folks bring with them have little to do with reality as I see it.
I'm also so frustrated by people who are willing to believe things like this, which impugn the intelligence of those who disagree with them as opposed to making any effort at at when it comes to figuring out why they disagree.
Common sense is the natural conclusions of your assumptions and prior experience. So what does that even mean in the political arena?
I was told that I was stupid because I lack the "common sense" to blame the economic recession on a political actor. That, simply, doesn't make any sense. No politician would want a recession, because that always causes a political backlash on whomever might be in charge at the time. There is no reason for any politician in power to want one, so why would anyone manufacture one?
Moreover, what kind of crazy assumptions is someone bringing with them for that to even make sense? I mean, someone would have to genuinely think that Bush is a drooling idiot and Republicans are irresponsible and self-righteous morons, or that Obama really isn't American and Democrats seek an overthrow of America as we know it. It really makes me frustrated with the political process when the assumptions that folks bring with them have little to do with reality as I see it.
I'm also so frustrated by people who are willing to believe things like this, which impugn the intelligence of those who disagree with them as opposed to making any effort at at when it comes to figuring out why they disagree.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Formula Athiests (part 1?)
One thing has always bothered me about religious discussion online. It's been with the popular strain of atheists online. I'm not talking about religious atheists like some kinds of Buddhists or LaVeyan Satanists, or the more nuanced agnostics. I like to call them formula atheists, but I don't think that's how they self identify.
The thing that has always bothered me is that they had always been far more homogeneous than the religious groups they argue against. They tend to use precisely the same arguments worded almost identically and as often as not they link to the same list of strange/creepy stuff in the bible from 1998. They invariably refuse to discuss things other than Christianity, and seem to think that common criticisms of Christianity somehow invalidate different faith-traditions. They also insist on the strangest form for Biblical Literalism, far more than even the most fundamental of the radical Fundamentalists with this strange aversion to "cherry picking" like making the strange assumption that poetry about women lusting for men with dicks of donkeys is figurative. Never mind theology, or even literary scholarship, everything in the Bible is either entirely literally true or entirely false. Then there are the constant allusions to science about things that science and logic about things that science and logic are silent, asserting that these things are in inevitable and eternal conflict ignoring the long periods where they mutually supported one another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not definitively stating that they are all entirely false forever. But it was the fact that these discussions almost always go exact same way from the position of the atheist. I've been around long enough that I'm pretty certain that I could effectively spoof that whole discussion from there perspective. Still, I didn't agree in 2000, and I still don't agree now.
I think I figured out why. Now, this is just me putting forth a hypothesis that seems to fit my admittedly casual sample and not intended to apply to all atheists, but just the kind previously discussed. It's a reductionist ideology. It's a simple way to look at a complicate issue. Religious groups are "bad" and the various differences between them and the very nature of theology can be glossed over because a very distinct set of assumptions.
I have to say, if I accepted those assumptions as true and were to base my own world view upon them then I would likely agree with them. Their later arguments are generally well crafted based on the assumptions they start with, they all follow and make sense. The problem is, I'm familiar with a wide variety of theological arguments, and a lot of those assumptions (Christianity is representative of all Religion, The Bible is intended to be entirely literal, Religion opposes Science, Religious people are atheists about all deities except their own) ring false. But, they can appear to be true when not examined. When pressed in discussion, these individuals are not willing to discuss the veracity of these specific topics. Why? Because they are the assumptions, and because these assumptions (among others) are used to reduce the complexity of the issue at hand to where the more complicated arguments make sense and disagreement can be brushed off because they can be assumed to be false based on the givens at the beginning of the discussion.
This is the same kind of idea structure that leads to things like "All Arabs are Muslim and therefore Terrorists", "The Government wants all our stuff and lies therefore we don't have to pay Income Taxes", and "Republicans/Democrats are dicks/hate America therefore they oppress minorities an the poor/force people to do stuff that doesn't make sense". It's all reductionist ideology designed to create artificial certainty about a complicated topics by ignoring that complexity through the use of a set of simplifying assumptions.
The problem is, while these comments and arguments make perfect sense are are unassailable when all involved agree to that set of assumptions, they are arbitrary, opaque, and mostly nonsensical to those who adhere to a different set of assumptions. The only way anyone can "win" is when someone buys into a new set of assumptions.
Now, I'm not saying that this demonstrates that anyone is "wrong" or "right", they also aren't the only ones who do this in religious discussions there are classes of religious debaters who fall into the exact same category. I'm just excited to have a working hypothesis on this particular concept.
What comes next is figuring out a way to test this hypothesis. If I can figure out an experiment then I'll follow this post up with results.
The thing that has always bothered me is that they had always been far more homogeneous than the religious groups they argue against. They tend to use precisely the same arguments worded almost identically and as often as not they link to the same list of strange/creepy stuff in the bible from 1998. They invariably refuse to discuss things other than Christianity, and seem to think that common criticisms of Christianity somehow invalidate different faith-traditions. They also insist on the strangest form for Biblical Literalism, far more than even the most fundamental of the radical Fundamentalists with this strange aversion to "cherry picking" like making the strange assumption that poetry about women lusting for men with dicks of donkeys is figurative. Never mind theology, or even literary scholarship, everything in the Bible is either entirely literally true or entirely false. Then there are the constant allusions to science about things that science and logic about things that science and logic are silent, asserting that these things are in inevitable and eternal conflict ignoring the long periods where they mutually supported one another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not definitively stating that they are all entirely false forever. But it was the fact that these discussions almost always go exact same way from the position of the atheist. I've been around long enough that I'm pretty certain that I could effectively spoof that whole discussion from there perspective. Still, I didn't agree in 2000, and I still don't agree now.
I think I figured out why. Now, this is just me putting forth a hypothesis that seems to fit my admittedly casual sample and not intended to apply to all atheists, but just the kind previously discussed. It's a reductionist ideology. It's a simple way to look at a complicate issue. Religious groups are "bad" and the various differences between them and the very nature of theology can be glossed over because a very distinct set of assumptions.
I have to say, if I accepted those assumptions as true and were to base my own world view upon them then I would likely agree with them. Their later arguments are generally well crafted based on the assumptions they start with, they all follow and make sense. The problem is, I'm familiar with a wide variety of theological arguments, and a lot of those assumptions (Christianity is representative of all Religion, The Bible is intended to be entirely literal, Religion opposes Science, Religious people are atheists about all deities except their own) ring false. But, they can appear to be true when not examined. When pressed in discussion, these individuals are not willing to discuss the veracity of these specific topics. Why? Because they are the assumptions, and because these assumptions (among others) are used to reduce the complexity of the issue at hand to where the more complicated arguments make sense and disagreement can be brushed off because they can be assumed to be false based on the givens at the beginning of the discussion.
This is the same kind of idea structure that leads to things like "All Arabs are Muslim and therefore Terrorists", "The Government wants all our stuff and lies therefore we don't have to pay Income Taxes", and "Republicans/Democrats are dicks/hate America therefore they oppress minorities an the poor/force people to do stuff that doesn't make sense". It's all reductionist ideology designed to create artificial certainty about a complicated topics by ignoring that complexity through the use of a set of simplifying assumptions.
The problem is, while these comments and arguments make perfect sense are are unassailable when all involved agree to that set of assumptions, they are arbitrary, opaque, and mostly nonsensical to those who adhere to a different set of assumptions. The only way anyone can "win" is when someone buys into a new set of assumptions.
Now, I'm not saying that this demonstrates that anyone is "wrong" or "right", they also aren't the only ones who do this in religious discussions there are classes of religious debaters who fall into the exact same category. I'm just excited to have a working hypothesis on this particular concept.
What comes next is figuring out a way to test this hypothesis. If I can figure out an experiment then I'll follow this post up with results.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Check up on your contracts...
Especially the security deeds for your house. Over the past decade or two changes in the banking system have resulted in inaccurate paperwork. Almost half of all houses now have a gap in the chain of ownership, especially if the residents haven't changed but the banks have. These gaps can make selling the house hard after all having a gap leaves an air of uncertainty and opens up the risk of future lawsuit. In a handful of cases it's even worse, where a security deed has been issued for more than one bank, that means that there is a chance that someone might be able to foreclose on you that you haven't even heard of.
It's very important to keep everything set up right. And audits of foreclosure proceedings have showed errors in just about every case. It would be wise to make sure that the same kind of problems aren't also effecting you.
It's very important to keep everything set up right. And audits of foreclosure proceedings have showed errors in just about every case. It would be wise to make sure that the same kind of problems aren't also effecting you.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Vocabulary makes stupid sound smart.
"Lol, wut?"
"I don't understand all that complicated stuff".
"That issue is simply too full of arcane regulations and byzantine rules for me to form an accurate assessment at this time."
They all mean the same thing, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. It's important to be able to use the latter rather than the former. Even if you never need it, having the unused capacity is simply better than being forced to tell a banker "lol, wut?"
They don't appreciate the humor. Honest, I checked.
So, how does someone develop a complex and varied vocabulary? Well, I know it's not really an easy suggestion, but read. And not newspapers and magazines, since they generally intentionally use grade school vocabularies. It has to be books, the hard and difficult kind. Since they use the good words, the ones that score bonus points for being both recognisable and nuanced. Then, after that, you still have to write, or at least speak, with those words. After all, practice makes it come easy like you're not trying.
Is it work? Yeah, but existing is work. Take it or leave it, but I like whipping out the big words every so often.
"I don't understand all that complicated stuff".
"That issue is simply too full of arcane regulations and byzantine rules for me to form an accurate assessment at this time."
They all mean the same thing, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. It's important to be able to use the latter rather than the former. Even if you never need it, having the unused capacity is simply better than being forced to tell a banker "lol, wut?"
They don't appreciate the humor. Honest, I checked.
So, how does someone develop a complex and varied vocabulary? Well, I know it's not really an easy suggestion, but read. And not newspapers and magazines, since they generally intentionally use grade school vocabularies. It has to be books, the hard and difficult kind. Since they use the good words, the ones that score bonus points for being both recognisable and nuanced. Then, after that, you still have to write, or at least speak, with those words. After all, practice makes it come easy like you're not trying.
Is it work? Yeah, but existing is work. Take it or leave it, but I like whipping out the big words every so often.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
I don't understand lawyers.
No, seriously. I have no idea how their infrastructure came to be. I mean, the concept of billable hours makes no sense for clients, it's a structure designed for abuse. The lawyer essentially HAS to, it'd be stupid not to.
Moreover, they work 80-90 hours a week and generally overtax those who work there while there half of last year's law school graduating classes are still looking for a job. I don't understand why they torture themselves so horribly when there is an easy and ready solution, namely hiring these unemployed lawyers on as mercenary or for contract work. That seems to me to make sense, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
There is just so much strange and arbitrary in the way these firms deal with one another that I am only beginning to observe, much less understand. I must confess, law school has to be necessary. How else can the learn all the secret hand shakes and code words required to operate in a world where tradition is gravity and time cannot be shared especially if it is killing you.
Moreover, they work 80-90 hours a week and generally overtax those who work there while there half of last year's law school graduating classes are still looking for a job. I don't understand why they torture themselves so horribly when there is an easy and ready solution, namely hiring these unemployed lawyers on as mercenary or for contract work. That seems to me to make sense, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
There is just so much strange and arbitrary in the way these firms deal with one another that I am only beginning to observe, much less understand. I must confess, law school has to be necessary. How else can the learn all the secret hand shakes and code words required to operate in a world where tradition is gravity and time cannot be shared especially if it is killing you.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
I think I figured out why some folks are just so much louder than others.
Bear with me, 'cause this is just me spit balling here, but I think that some folks are way louder than average because they don't wait for the gaps in other conversations to speak. Why? Well, I assume that their parents don't and they were raised in an environment where they have to learn to talk over things in order to be heard.
Why? Well, I sit around crowds a bit. And I've noticed that the ambient noise levels varies hugely based on rather small differences in group composition. Basically, a couple of people who talk over other conversations force those other conversations to be louder in order to continue. It quickly leads to a positive feedback loop in which everyone is nearly shouting in short order.
I suspect that working very hard on a handful of individuals to get them to speak in the gaps, like many other individuals do, would reduce both the frequency and volume of this problem. The part I'm stuck on is how to make that possible. After all, telling someone that they are loud and making everyone around them loud isn't exactly tactful, and cooperation is necessary for any progress to be made at all. Since, no forcing someone else to change behavior is almost invariably a bad thing that can only really be managed by using the most distasteful methods.
Any ideas on how to make this minor annoyance less annoying would be most welcome.
Why? Well, I sit around crowds a bit. And I've noticed that the ambient noise levels varies hugely based on rather small differences in group composition. Basically, a couple of people who talk over other conversations force those other conversations to be louder in order to continue. It quickly leads to a positive feedback loop in which everyone is nearly shouting in short order.
I suspect that working very hard on a handful of individuals to get them to speak in the gaps, like many other individuals do, would reduce both the frequency and volume of this problem. The part I'm stuck on is how to make that possible. After all, telling someone that they are loud and making everyone around them loud isn't exactly tactful, and cooperation is necessary for any progress to be made at all. Since, no forcing someone else to change behavior is almost invariably a bad thing that can only really be managed by using the most distasteful methods.
Any ideas on how to make this minor annoyance less annoying would be most welcome.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Bureaucracy...
I don't think that I've ever come across someone who really liked bureaucracy. Still, it's like EVERYWHERE. Why? It's a social construct. It doesn't have to exist. This, like all social constructs exists because we collectively say so. The question become, why do we say so? Why do we make something that we so clearly hate exist?
Well, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing worse than having a bureaucracy is not having one. When trying to make something happen I need to first know who to bug about it. Without something resembling a bureaucracy, I don't have anything to go on. Who do I ask? How do I ask? Where to I go to ask? Who knows? I sure don't. Sure, someone would be dedicated to answering those questions, but it doesn't do me any good if I can't find that person.
At least with a bureaucracy I go to a general building and ask a receptionist. Will I get a run around? Probably, but even that is preferable to never even figuring out where to start. Moreover, that paperwork takes a wide range of very different kinds of inquiries and converts them into like terms, making it far easier to deal with very large numbers of inquiries while stripping a lot of the natural human bias of the thing.
Is it perfect? Fuck no. But it's simply superior than the ad hoc way we used to do things. Until we figure out a better way to do things, I'll just be grateful that we have what we do. That still won't stop me from praying that we figure out something better, however.
Well, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing worse than having a bureaucracy is not having one. When trying to make something happen I need to first know who to bug about it. Without something resembling a bureaucracy, I don't have anything to go on. Who do I ask? How do I ask? Where to I go to ask? Who knows? I sure don't. Sure, someone would be dedicated to answering those questions, but it doesn't do me any good if I can't find that person.
At least with a bureaucracy I go to a general building and ask a receptionist. Will I get a run around? Probably, but even that is preferable to never even figuring out where to start. Moreover, that paperwork takes a wide range of very different kinds of inquiries and converts them into like terms, making it far easier to deal with very large numbers of inquiries while stripping a lot of the natural human bias of the thing.
Is it perfect? Fuck no. But it's simply superior than the ad hoc way we used to do things. Until we figure out a better way to do things, I'll just be grateful that we have what we do. That still won't stop me from praying that we figure out something better, however.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Why does America exist?
That's a good question. I don't rightly know. I have to think that it's simply because we say so. I mean, what other reason could there possibly be. It's not like America is a thing. It has not physical form. There is nothing inherent in a form that defines it.
So, the only thing that makes it exist and keeps it the way it is happens to be people. America is exactly what we make it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure, we have a bunch of guidelines, some goals, and a promise as defined by our founding documents but the only reason those mean anything is because we are trying to live by them. Once we collectively stop trying, the whole thing will just collapse.
I don't mean that as a threat or a warning. I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage as that's an utter nonsequitor no matter how you slice it, nor do I believe that it has anything to do with immigration since converts tends to be some of the most zealous defenders of the ideas they adopt. I am simply trying to point that things like politics, culture, society, and other things that exist only in our heads... well, exist only in our heads.
These things exist for as long as we put forth the time and effort to make them continue to exist. So, America will collapse at some point, but only after I and those like me are long gone. I work pretty hard to make America exist, or at the very least I would like to think that I am. I'm not all that active in the political party aspect.
So, the only thing that makes it exist and keeps it the way it is happens to be people. America is exactly what we make it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure, we have a bunch of guidelines, some goals, and a promise as defined by our founding documents but the only reason those mean anything is because we are trying to live by them. Once we collectively stop trying, the whole thing will just collapse.
I don't mean that as a threat or a warning. I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage as that's an utter nonsequitor no matter how you slice it, nor do I believe that it has anything to do with immigration since converts tends to be some of the most zealous defenders of the ideas they adopt. I am simply trying to point that things like politics, culture, society, and other things that exist only in our heads... well, exist only in our heads.
These things exist for as long as we put forth the time and effort to make them continue to exist. So, America will collapse at some point, but only after I and those like me are long gone. I work pretty hard to make America exist, or at the very least I would like to think that I am. I'm not all that active in the political party aspect.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Whitney Houston is Dead.
I don't want to mean or something, but I honestly do not care. I didn't really care about Michael Jackson either. Is it alright if I sit this out and not grieve for people I do not know and have had no dealings with what so ever?
I'm not saying that other folks can't, but strangers judged me when I didn't care about Michael Jackson and I would rather pass on this thing on the second go round. The whole thing of me being expected to care strikes me as absurd. There are thousands of people who I don't know who die on any given day, and I'm pretty sure that some of them contribute far more to my life than Ms. Houston did. Don't get me wrong, she was an amazing singer and was justly one of the most awarded singers of our time, but why does that mean that I would pretend to have feelings that I don't?
I'm sorry if you did feel a connection, but I simply don't. I don't feel the world has appreciably changed or that things are diminished in any significant way. Death happens, and I tend to not care when death happens far away to people I don't know.
I hope this doesn't make me a jerk.
I'm not saying that other folks can't, but strangers judged me when I didn't care about Michael Jackson and I would rather pass on this thing on the second go round. The whole thing of me being expected to care strikes me as absurd. There are thousands of people who I don't know who die on any given day, and I'm pretty sure that some of them contribute far more to my life than Ms. Houston did. Don't get me wrong, she was an amazing singer and was justly one of the most awarded singers of our time, but why does that mean that I would pretend to have feelings that I don't?
I'm sorry if you did feel a connection, but I simply don't. I don't feel the world has appreciably changed or that things are diminished in any significant way. Death happens, and I tend to not care when death happens far away to people I don't know.
I hope this doesn't make me a jerk.
Have a plan...
Plans are silly, strange things. After all, nothing ever goes to plan. Even the best plans are held together with hope and conjecture. But, going in without a plan tends to be a bigger disaster than going in without one.
Why is that? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the money and time to come up with a plan to find out, either.
Still, if I had to hazard a guess I think it just has to do with not having to make a new decision at every point along the way. By having a set of guide posts, even less than accurate ones, laid out before hand gives I can act without second guessing myself and trying to reconsider things at times when I really don't have the resources to do so effectively.
It may be messy, inaccurate, and a disaster waiting to happen, I'll still be making these half-baked, flimsy plans made of optimism and a gross overestimation of my actual abilities because if I didn't then I would never get anything done.
Why is that? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the money and time to come up with a plan to find out, either.
Still, if I had to hazard a guess I think it just has to do with not having to make a new decision at every point along the way. By having a set of guide posts, even less than accurate ones, laid out before hand gives I can act without second guessing myself and trying to reconsider things at times when I really don't have the resources to do so effectively.
It may be messy, inaccurate, and a disaster waiting to happen, I'll still be making these half-baked, flimsy plans made of optimism and a gross overestimation of my actual abilities because if I didn't then I would never get anything done.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Know your audience.
For me, this bit of advice is easy. My audience is myself. This little blurb is mostly a sounding board for dialogs I have with myself, the fact that other folks read it (and the accompanying shot at advertisement revenue) is mostly gravy. So, I don't have to worry about stuff. As long as I make myself happy it's all good.
But, when you are doing anything that you actually expect to be good, or consumed beyond a relatively narrow band of friends and family then a whole new set of considerations come into play. You have to make sure that you know who you are looking to appeal to. Once you know who you want to appeal to then you actually have to do it. That bit is easier said than done, and even if you don't it's possible to squeak by... until someone else does it better.
On a side note, I am working to start a business and might be a tad distracted in my musing and mutterings for a while.
But, when you are doing anything that you actually expect to be good, or consumed beyond a relatively narrow band of friends and family then a whole new set of considerations come into play. You have to make sure that you know who you are looking to appeal to. Once you know who you want to appeal to then you actually have to do it. That bit is easier said than done, and even if you don't it's possible to squeak by... until someone else does it better.
On a side note, I am working to start a business and might be a tad distracted in my musing and mutterings for a while.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Play fair, Fight dirty.
One should always play fair, but never fight fair. I firmly believe that this is true.
Why do we play? We play to learn, to entertain, and to forge friendships. How can you be a good friend if you sharpen your candy canes in Candyland to a nice, sharp point for backstabbing? What does that say about you when things get serious? Nothing is fun about loosing to a cheater, either. Yeah, going around the rules might get you a rush but that's nothing compared to a good match that was well played. A well played loss teaches us so much more than a win could, especially a win that was stolen instead of earned.
A fight, however, is different. In a fight winning is what matters most of all. Even if that wasn't true, in a fight if someone demands that a fight be fair then it isn't. A fair fight is one that you have planned for and expect, even if your foe hasn't. If my foe demands a fair fight then it is a fight that I will likely lose if I acquiesce. If I hope to win a fight, I must fight my own way and by my rules rather than desperately attempting the learn the ways of another in the middle of a struggle.
Then again, I normally prefer framing a struggle so that I win in some way no matter what result comes up.
Why do we play? We play to learn, to entertain, and to forge friendships. How can you be a good friend if you sharpen your candy canes in Candyland to a nice, sharp point for backstabbing? What does that say about you when things get serious? Nothing is fun about loosing to a cheater, either. Yeah, going around the rules might get you a rush but that's nothing compared to a good match that was well played. A well played loss teaches us so much more than a win could, especially a win that was stolen instead of earned.
A fight, however, is different. In a fight winning is what matters most of all. Even if that wasn't true, in a fight if someone demands that a fight be fair then it isn't. A fair fight is one that you have planned for and expect, even if your foe hasn't. If my foe demands a fair fight then it is a fight that I will likely lose if I acquiesce. If I hope to win a fight, I must fight my own way and by my rules rather than desperately attempting the learn the ways of another in the middle of a struggle.
Then again, I normally prefer framing a struggle so that I win in some way no matter what result comes up.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The reason the government can't make jobs.
It seems like a simple enough solution, doesn't it? People need work. Why not just make the government say that there is work? I mean, the government can make things happen. After all, the government makes laws happen, and treaties as well. What is so different about jobs?
Well, the thing that's different is that jobs are simultaneously an asset and a liability. Well, all things are in a broader sense, but in this specific case it's far more obvious. You can order a job into existence, but that costs money, like a lot of money. While there is no authoritative statement as to the actual cost per job of the Recovery Act, number range from $275,000 per job to $100,000 per job. This is, well, a little outlandish considering that the median household income is only $44,389 and median personal income is approximately $27,500.
So, if jobs are that expensive how do governments and businesses get it done under normal circumstances? Well, normally businesses only hire when the job generates more money than it costs, or sensibly supports other jobs that generate more money than they cost. Governments tend to have specific jobs to do, and work as hard as they can to get that done with the fewest number of jobs.
So, it's not that the government can't create jobs. It's that creating jobs only make sense some of the time. To prioritize the existence of a job over the reasons to have a job is to create an expensive mess. It's not so much the fact that creating a job is hard, it's the willing of a job into existence in spite of the usual reasons for doing so that made this hard.
Frankly, I think that it would be easier and more direct to use the power and money to assist people who have reason to hire to do so as opposed to a more ham handed attempt to force things to happen. How about this, give new businesses tax credits and more financing options if they create five jobs and stay in business more than a year? Maybe pair it with free entrepeneurial classes that cover how to handle the complicated parts of starting a business. This way you don't unjustly benefit the rich, you don't benefit existing businesses inequitably, race should be an utter non-issue, and above all you speed up the natural growth and reformation of the market would is happening anyways as opposed to try to force it.
The government has a role to play in the economy, but a politician cannot force the economy to do what he wants. Power is everything in politics, but it's little more than a sideshow to the economy. Using power to get the economy to do things is a recipe for pain and frustration. I don't mind that this was tried before, but I worry that no lesson was learned from it.
Well, the thing that's different is that jobs are simultaneously an asset and a liability. Well, all things are in a broader sense, but in this specific case it's far more obvious. You can order a job into existence, but that costs money, like a lot of money. While there is no authoritative statement as to the actual cost per job of the Recovery Act, number range from $275,000 per job to $100,000 per job. This is, well, a little outlandish considering that the median household income is only $44,389 and median personal income is approximately $27,500.
So, if jobs are that expensive how do governments and businesses get it done under normal circumstances? Well, normally businesses only hire when the job generates more money than it costs, or sensibly supports other jobs that generate more money than they cost. Governments tend to have specific jobs to do, and work as hard as they can to get that done with the fewest number of jobs.
So, it's not that the government can't create jobs. It's that creating jobs only make sense some of the time. To prioritize the existence of a job over the reasons to have a job is to create an expensive mess. It's not so much the fact that creating a job is hard, it's the willing of a job into existence in spite of the usual reasons for doing so that made this hard.
Frankly, I think that it would be easier and more direct to use the power and money to assist people who have reason to hire to do so as opposed to a more ham handed attempt to force things to happen. How about this, give new businesses tax credits and more financing options if they create five jobs and stay in business more than a year? Maybe pair it with free entrepeneurial classes that cover how to handle the complicated parts of starting a business. This way you don't unjustly benefit the rich, you don't benefit existing businesses inequitably, race should be an utter non-issue, and above all you speed up the natural growth and reformation of the market would is happening anyways as opposed to try to force it.
The government has a role to play in the economy, but a politician cannot force the economy to do what he wants. Power is everything in politics, but it's little more than a sideshow to the economy. Using power to get the economy to do things is a recipe for pain and frustration. I don't mind that this was tried before, but I worry that no lesson was learned from it.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Why compound interest is magic.
You put money in a pile, and every so often you check back and there is more money there. MAGIC!!!!
Well, not really. The secret is that the money in that pile isn't actually there any more. That money is being lent to people and exists elsewhere as a home loan, a car loan, the money that companies borrow from the end of the month to pay payroll in the middle of the month, and the like. Why would anyone agree to this? Why would anyone allow their cash reserves to be taken by people they don't know and used to make things happen that they never even hear about? The answer is that magic extra money that shows up. That magic extra money can quickly end up being far greater than the money actually put in the first place.
This means that the same money can be actively saved by one person and actively spent by someone else. One of the bigger problems that contributed to poverty in our history was the problem of finding enough money to actually make stuff happen. Compound Interest made that vanish as a problem for almost all of us. It's relatively easy for us to get the bills required to pay the bills, most of us don't have to worry about finding hard currency or scramble to barter because we just don't have the currency required to make stuff happen. MAGIC!
I mean if a farmer has $5 and a mechanic has $5 at the beginning of the month how much money exists? Well, ten dollars. But if the mechanic buys food for $5. Then, a week later the farmer fixes his equipment for $10. Then, even later the mechanic buys food for $5. At the end of the month, how much money existed? Ten dollars or twenty? The answer, of course, is both because magic. But what if the farmer didn't have the money to pay for repairs? Well, you'd have one sad farmer and one hungry mechanic.
There is, however, a problem with this system. When money slows down the opposite happens. If there was a guy who held money throughout that month, how much more money exists? Well, none. Not really. Money only has value in movement, if it's shoved in a bed then it doesn't mean anything except potential. It could eventually maybe have meaning. While when money is lent and lent again it lets us have our cake and eat it too. When that money comes to a screeching halt because someone charged up credit cards and are unable to keep up or people give home loans to cocker spaniels then it takes our cake and kicks sand in our collective faces. That's what happened in the Great Recession, and is also MAGIC. Although, this magic is the kind that makes you make out with a coat rack in a hotel event room for the amusement of a couple hundred drunk strangers.
In short, compound interest is magic. But you have to be nice to it, and not let people charge you money to give you money. Because that magic can be used against you just as easily as it can be used for you.
Well, not really. The secret is that the money in that pile isn't actually there any more. That money is being lent to people and exists elsewhere as a home loan, a car loan, the money that companies borrow from the end of the month to pay payroll in the middle of the month, and the like. Why would anyone agree to this? Why would anyone allow their cash reserves to be taken by people they don't know and used to make things happen that they never even hear about? The answer is that magic extra money that shows up. That magic extra money can quickly end up being far greater than the money actually put in the first place.
This means that the same money can be actively saved by one person and actively spent by someone else. One of the bigger problems that contributed to poverty in our history was the problem of finding enough money to actually make stuff happen. Compound Interest made that vanish as a problem for almost all of us. It's relatively easy for us to get the bills required to pay the bills, most of us don't have to worry about finding hard currency or scramble to barter because we just don't have the currency required to make stuff happen. MAGIC!
I mean if a farmer has $5 and a mechanic has $5 at the beginning of the month how much money exists? Well, ten dollars. But if the mechanic buys food for $5. Then, a week later the farmer fixes his equipment for $10. Then, even later the mechanic buys food for $5. At the end of the month, how much money existed? Ten dollars or twenty? The answer, of course, is both because magic. But what if the farmer didn't have the money to pay for repairs? Well, you'd have one sad farmer and one hungry mechanic.
There is, however, a problem with this system. When money slows down the opposite happens. If there was a guy who held money throughout that month, how much more money exists? Well, none. Not really. Money only has value in movement, if it's shoved in a bed then it doesn't mean anything except potential. It could eventually maybe have meaning. While when money is lent and lent again it lets us have our cake and eat it too. When that money comes to a screeching halt because someone charged up credit cards and are unable to keep up or people give home loans to cocker spaniels then it takes our cake and kicks sand in our collective faces. That's what happened in the Great Recession, and is also MAGIC. Although, this magic is the kind that makes you make out with a coat rack in a hotel event room for the amusement of a couple hundred drunk strangers.
In short, compound interest is magic. But you have to be nice to it, and not let people charge you money to give you money. Because that magic can be used against you just as easily as it can be used for you.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Americans don't hate the rich.
Americans hate cheaters.
It is a well established fact that Americans, perhaps uniquely among all the world's people, believe that they are one idea, one lucky break, and a couple of years of hard work away from being among the richest of the rich. It also just happens to be, perhaps uniquely among the world's nations, this is simply more true than elsewhere. It's not just not likely, but who care about the odds? It happens, we make it happen, and it can happen to any of us. So, why rant and rave about the rich when that group might include you, your close friends, or your family in a matter of a couple of years?
No, Americans don't hate the rich. We envy those who become rich through luck. We are jealous of those become rich through skill and hard work. We seek to emulate them, sometimes we even succeed. Yet, we still have the Occupy Wall Street folks. There are still people who claim class warfare is just as alive here as it is in Europe. Only, here they don't focus on the rich in general, they focus on the rich who abuse their power. They focus on the rich who seek to escape their obligations, be they taxes or those who seek to lean upon our legal system. We strongly resist the notion that things should be anything but a level playing field.
It's not just the rich either. Have you ever read the restrictions on welfare money? It can't be spent on things from alcohol to strippers to luxury cars. Normally, Americans don't care much about how other folks use their money, but this is a case of cheating. People hate the notion that other folks put all their effort into using tax money and hard work of others to live well (sort of) without having to earn it, it violates our sense of fair play and the notions we have of what people should do.
It's not just that either, but that's part of the thing behind illegal immigration. It's not just that folks are coming here. It's that they are doing so by "cutting" in line ahead of other folks and breaking our laws. For some people it is the immigration bit that is the problem, but there is a reason why they specify illegal every time. Most Americans don't have a problem with immigration, they do have a problem with those they view as cheaters. That may or may not be a fair characterization, but there won't be a simple resolution to this issue until the notion of illegal immigrants as cheaters is dealt with.
Or, at least, that's the sense that I've come to understand.
It is a well established fact that Americans, perhaps uniquely among all the world's people, believe that they are one idea, one lucky break, and a couple of years of hard work away from being among the richest of the rich. It also just happens to be, perhaps uniquely among the world's nations, this is simply more true than elsewhere. It's not just not likely, but who care about the odds? It happens, we make it happen, and it can happen to any of us. So, why rant and rave about the rich when that group might include you, your close friends, or your family in a matter of a couple of years?
No, Americans don't hate the rich. We envy those who become rich through luck. We are jealous of those become rich through skill and hard work. We seek to emulate them, sometimes we even succeed. Yet, we still have the Occupy Wall Street folks. There are still people who claim class warfare is just as alive here as it is in Europe. Only, here they don't focus on the rich in general, they focus on the rich who abuse their power. They focus on the rich who seek to escape their obligations, be they taxes or those who seek to lean upon our legal system. We strongly resist the notion that things should be anything but a level playing field.
It's not just the rich either. Have you ever read the restrictions on welfare money? It can't be spent on things from alcohol to strippers to luxury cars. Normally, Americans don't care much about how other folks use their money, but this is a case of cheating. People hate the notion that other folks put all their effort into using tax money and hard work of others to live well (sort of) without having to earn it, it violates our sense of fair play and the notions we have of what people should do.
It's not just that either, but that's part of the thing behind illegal immigration. It's not just that folks are coming here. It's that they are doing so by "cutting" in line ahead of other folks and breaking our laws. For some people it is the immigration bit that is the problem, but there is a reason why they specify illegal every time. Most Americans don't have a problem with immigration, they do have a problem with those they view as cheaters. That may or may not be a fair characterization, but there won't be a simple resolution to this issue until the notion of illegal immigrants as cheaters is dealt with.
Or, at least, that's the sense that I've come to understand.
Friday, February 3, 2012
If I were to create a super being.
I wouldn't give them solid super powers, after all that would lead to predictable scenarios. No, I would go with something else that's way more dangerous and hopefully entertaining.
Rather, my superbeing would have the powers that the last person to have substantive contact believes that it does. Why? Because knowing stuff, and believing stuff, changes thing. At least on the quantum level. Why not apply that on a grander scale.
It also means that he has the powers his foes believe that he does. Not only that, but he has to carefully manage his image because if he has to stop to rescue someone who deeply believes that he's being ironic about his ability to fly then he'll have to hoof it to someone who believes that he can.
And this opponents! AH, how much fun can you have with that? A deadpan snarker would be his worst nightmare. After all, what if someone can convince his minions/groupies that the superbeing is full of shit, and not in the figurative way?
Would it get confusing? Definitely. Could it run as a webcomic or comic book? Most definitely, but not for decades and decades. At least not in that form. It's a shame that I really don't have the artistic ability to make that happen.
Rather, my superbeing would have the powers that the last person to have substantive contact believes that it does. Why? Because knowing stuff, and believing stuff, changes thing. At least on the quantum level. Why not apply that on a grander scale.
It also means that he has the powers his foes believe that he does. Not only that, but he has to carefully manage his image because if he has to stop to rescue someone who deeply believes that he's being ironic about his ability to fly then he'll have to hoof it to someone who believes that he can.
And this opponents! AH, how much fun can you have with that? A deadpan snarker would be his worst nightmare. After all, what if someone can convince his minions/groupies that the superbeing is full of shit, and not in the figurative way?
Would it get confusing? Definitely. Could it run as a webcomic or comic book? Most definitely, but not for decades and decades. At least not in that form. It's a shame that I really don't have the artistic ability to make that happen.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Music was better when...
I should stop reading the comments in youtube videos. After all, they never change. I remember eight years ago people expounding upon how current music sucks and that real music was from the 1990's. I remember when I was a kid people saying the same thing, that real music was from the 1980's. Now, I read the comments and someone complains about the quality of current music and waxes nostalgic for the music of a decade ago.
Music has always sucked. Well, more accurately, most music that comes out in any genera is mediocre. That's the definition of mediocre. Occasionally you will have a great song, but most of it is instantly forgettable. That's exactly what happens. When people make those play lists for decades gone by they forget the bad stuff, vaguely recall the terrible stuff, play the mediocre stuff only occasionally, and focus heavily on the best.
But beyond that, the common themes of music change over time. They also tend to be acquired tastes. Rap commonly appears in pop songs now. This wasn't the case a few decades ago, and now some of the better songs of the past few years feature a pop artist and a rap artist that provide a counterpoint. This arrangement has be gradually eased into existence over more than a decade. These trends, well they generally mystify me until much later. It's easier to pick out patterns when you have more stuff to work with.
These two things have always happened and will always happen. Twenty years after the fact there will be a station that plays older music part the time and people will compare it to what the current popular music is. That comparison will be unfair, the older stuff will simply sound far better because the play list has been cherry picked and people who grew up with will simply have developed a fondness for the flavor of the older music more so than the newer. And you know what? Their kids will have the same experience twenty years later. It's the way the industry works.
Music has always sucked. Well, more accurately, most music that comes out in any genera is mediocre. That's the definition of mediocre. Occasionally you will have a great song, but most of it is instantly forgettable. That's exactly what happens. When people make those play lists for decades gone by they forget the bad stuff, vaguely recall the terrible stuff, play the mediocre stuff only occasionally, and focus heavily on the best.
But beyond that, the common themes of music change over time. They also tend to be acquired tastes. Rap commonly appears in pop songs now. This wasn't the case a few decades ago, and now some of the better songs of the past few years feature a pop artist and a rap artist that provide a counterpoint. This arrangement has be gradually eased into existence over more than a decade. These trends, well they generally mystify me until much later. It's easier to pick out patterns when you have more stuff to work with.
These two things have always happened and will always happen. Twenty years after the fact there will be a station that plays older music part the time and people will compare it to what the current popular music is. That comparison will be unfair, the older stuff will simply sound far better because the play list has been cherry picked and people who grew up with will simply have developed a fondness for the flavor of the older music more so than the newer. And you know what? Their kids will have the same experience twenty years later. It's the way the industry works.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The reason the movie isn't as good as the book.
There are more than a few cases where the movie based on the book is as good as or even better than the book. But this isn't normally the case. And this is for good reason. When you tell the same story in different mediums things do, in fact, work differently.
The difference between book and film is simply how much stuff you can cover. The story told in a book can be much grander, you can cover dozens or even hundreds of characters over generations of time. Each detail can be expounded upon, or it can take the sweep of centuries. The sheer size of a book can simply be far larger than that in a movie. Even television shows and miniseries tell much greater stories than a movie can. Because, after all you're talking about 90 to 250 minutes of time with a movie. In that time you must introduce the characters, establish the world, build to a climax, and wrap things up. You can end up trying to put dozens of different scenes in four TV episodes. Making it fit is, well, hard.
Another major reason movies often don't live up the book is the fact that we supply our own sets and characters for the books. If the book describes a beautiful woman then we supply our own idea of beauty. If it describes a creepy castle then we fill in the gaps with things that we find creepy. In a book, each one of us creates our own version of those things that suit us perfectly. This isn't true with a movie. In a movie they must hire a beautiful woman and design a castle that they feel is creepy. But, as with all such aesthetics, your mileage varies for this. Different people find different things scary, to different degrees. A hit for most people will be a miss for some, and when the atmosphere and meaning of the story depends upon these things working it is just so much harder.
All this being said, none of this stuff is insurmountable. It's just hard, sometimes it's much harder than people expect.
The difference between book and film is simply how much stuff you can cover. The story told in a book can be much grander, you can cover dozens or even hundreds of characters over generations of time. Each detail can be expounded upon, or it can take the sweep of centuries. The sheer size of a book can simply be far larger than that in a movie. Even television shows and miniseries tell much greater stories than a movie can. Because, after all you're talking about 90 to 250 minutes of time with a movie. In that time you must introduce the characters, establish the world, build to a climax, and wrap things up. You can end up trying to put dozens of different scenes in four TV episodes. Making it fit is, well, hard.
Another major reason movies often don't live up the book is the fact that we supply our own sets and characters for the books. If the book describes a beautiful woman then we supply our own idea of beauty. If it describes a creepy castle then we fill in the gaps with things that we find creepy. In a book, each one of us creates our own version of those things that suit us perfectly. This isn't true with a movie. In a movie they must hire a beautiful woman and design a castle that they feel is creepy. But, as with all such aesthetics, your mileage varies for this. Different people find different things scary, to different degrees. A hit for most people will be a miss for some, and when the atmosphere and meaning of the story depends upon these things working it is just so much harder.
All this being said, none of this stuff is insurmountable. It's just hard, sometimes it's much harder than people expect.
Is it art?
Let's say that there is a sign. A simple sign, white background with a green border and red letters. It states simply "No Art Present" in a place where one would normally expect to see art. You don't know who put it up there or why. Is it art? Is it an official notice stating that whatever would be on display is not? Am I simply being messed with?
I've never gotten the same answer twice. Well, I've asked five people and gotten multiple "yes" and "no" answers, but the reasons were always different. I think this is a function of how the art industry... Industry? Establishment? Thing? ... I don't even know what to call it any more... works.
This... economic structure... exists for a very simple and important reason. To turn things that are art into money, so that people with the talent, vision, and aptitude can spend their time creating art as opposed to doing something else to support themselves. This can, when done properly, lead to much more art existing of a higher quality. I firmly believe that this is a good thing.
What I don't think is a good thing, however, is some of the things being sold as art. There are times when I have been in an art museum and found myself baffled as to why something is art. The remark "my four year old could do that" is often true, a four year old could produce some of the pieces in museums. What a four year old cannot do is convince people that something is art, and therefore worth money. I do believe that this comes from more than a century of "pushing the boundaries of art", which was an effective marketing tool to creating the artistic personages that generate the money that fund the art world as we know it, but the boundaries have been pushed so far that they now appear to be entirely arbitrary. What is art? I am beginning to suspect that it's whatever someone calls art.
I am unconvinced that Warhol's 32 Soup Cans or the Incoherents art movement of the 1880's are actually art, with the exception that they convinced people that they were. I like art, but I have always preferred art that has a point or message. Art that tells me something. I have heard from an art major that this is a primitive view of art. Whatever. When I require an expert in art to discern the differences between a child's scribbles and art, I'm over the whole thing. There are better things for me to do than ponder if that is a coffee stain or a statement about modern, industrial society.
I've never gotten the same answer twice. Well, I've asked five people and gotten multiple "yes" and "no" answers, but the reasons were always different. I think this is a function of how the art industry... Industry? Establishment? Thing? ... I don't even know what to call it any more... works.
This... economic structure... exists for a very simple and important reason. To turn things that are art into money, so that people with the talent, vision, and aptitude can spend their time creating art as opposed to doing something else to support themselves. This can, when done properly, lead to much more art existing of a higher quality. I firmly believe that this is a good thing.
What I don't think is a good thing, however, is some of the things being sold as art. There are times when I have been in an art museum and found myself baffled as to why something is art. The remark "my four year old could do that" is often true, a four year old could produce some of the pieces in museums. What a four year old cannot do is convince people that something is art, and therefore worth money. I do believe that this comes from more than a century of "pushing the boundaries of art", which was an effective marketing tool to creating the artistic personages that generate the money that fund the art world as we know it, but the boundaries have been pushed so far that they now appear to be entirely arbitrary. What is art? I am beginning to suspect that it's whatever someone calls art.
I am unconvinced that Warhol's 32 Soup Cans or the Incoherents art movement of the 1880's are actually art, with the exception that they convinced people that they were. I like art, but I have always preferred art that has a point or message. Art that tells me something. I have heard from an art major that this is a primitive view of art. Whatever. When I require an expert in art to discern the differences between a child's scribbles and art, I'm over the whole thing. There are better things for me to do than ponder if that is a coffee stain or a statement about modern, industrial society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)